1.Title, director and release year?
- The Forest for the Trees, Bernadine Mellis, 2006
2.What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
- “Who guards the guardians” → the idea that people in power are not above the law and must be kept in check. Also these same guardians (can) stand in the way of societal progress.
- This is displayed through the case of Judi Bari of EarthFirst!, who was framed by the Oakland Police and the FBI for the bombing of her own car as a means of destroying her organization’s peaceful image.
3.What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
- We are currently stripping forests of their trees faster than we are replacing them, causing detrimental deforestation and increasingly polluted air while loggers must face persistent protesters instead of government regulation.
- You can also consider government deception as a sustainability problem because this would constitute a major obstacle in rectifying a sustainability problem that requires government regulation/control.
4.What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
- The development of the case was very compelling. It showed how the police attempted to distort Judi’s innocence by claiming EarthFirst! was a violent organization. Watching the facts unravel and piecing the puzzle together as it led back to the police was astonishing because we entrust these people with our protection; to see how these people deliberately attempted to kill this innocent woman changes how I view our “guardians.”
5.What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
- I was disappointed with the ending of the trial, which I understand cannot be changed by the documentary, but I found it disappointing that all the courts did was award the deceased woman money without actually serving justice to those who acted in the heinous crime.
- The director also closed the film out with the end of the trial and spoke briefly about the organization members post-trial; however, I wish she had spoken more the main focus of the trial, which was the deception we face in society by our own elected government and how this is a serious problem for our development. After all, how are we supposed to make progressive change when we can’t trust what our own government tells us?
6.What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
- This film made me want to know how often this government ‘conspiracy-type’ events happen and why, even when we discover this happens, there is no severe punishment and/or further investigation to rid the system of the ‘crooked cops’ per se. It baffles me that the we trust the system we have in place so much that even when conspiracies are discovered, we do not demand a change in system; a simple change in ‘who’s in charge’ suffices and it is as if nothing ever happened.
- This film also makes me wonder how free our nation really is when we are so clearly kept in the dark. I feel that we have a right to know and that when events such as Judi Bari’s car being bombed, someone should be convicted of a crime.
7.What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
- I don’t know that this film actually touches on the environmental problem enough to address those who are environmentally concerned. This film, in my opinion, focuses more on the role of government in preventing sustainable change, which is still compelling and equally important. It is more likely that viewers of this film will begin to second guess the perception that government is all-telling and question how much change is actually possible without the full cooperation of government.
8.What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
- Not to sound repetitive, but the film suggests that we cannot always depend on our government to be honest, although this is usually for “our own good.” It encourages fighting injustices done against us, even if it is done by the government because even they are not above the law.
9.What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
- According to the title, I had expected this film to be more about the logging industry and not government agencies and our legal system. So perhaps to add to the environmental education, the director could have focused a little longer on the logging industry and why it is so protected by the government (in that the government does not impose regulations on this industry).
1. Title, director and release year?
- The Forest for the Trees, Bernadine Mellis, 2006
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
- “Who guards the guardians” → the idea that people in power are not above the law and must be kept in check. Also these same guardians (can) stand in the way of societal progress.
- This is displayed through the case of Judi Bari of EarthFirst!, who was framed by the Oakland Police and the FBI for the bombing of her own car as a means of destroying her organization’s peaceful image.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
- We are currently stripping forests of their trees faster than we are replacing them, causing detrimental deforestation and increasingly polluted air while loggers must face persistent protesters instead of government regulation.
- You can also consider government deception as a sustainability problem because this would constitute a major obstacle in rectifying a sustainability problem that requires government regulation/control.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
- The development of the case was very compelling. It showed how the police attempted to distort Judi’s innocence by claiming EarthFirst! was a violent organization. Watching the facts unravel and piecing the puzzle together as it led back to the police was astonishing because we entrust these people with our protection; to see how these people deliberately attempted to kill this innocent woman changes how I view our “guardians.”
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
- I was disappointed with the ending of the trial, which I understand cannot be changed by the documentary, but I found it disappointing that all the courts did was award the deceased woman money without actually serving justice to those who acted in the heinous crime.
- The director also closed the film out with the end of the trial and spoke briefly about the organization members post-trial; however, I wish she had spoken more the main focus of the trial, which was the deception we face in society by our own elected government and how this is a serious problem for our development. After all, how are we supposed to make progressive change when we can’t trust what our own government tells us?
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
- This film made me want to know how often this government ‘conspiracy-type’ events happen and why, even when we discover this happens, there is no severe punishment and/or further investigation to rid the system of the ‘crooked cops’ per se. It baffles me that the we trust the system we have in place so much that even when conspiracies are discovered, we do not demand a change in system; a simple change in ‘who’s in charge’ suffices and it is as if nothing ever happened.
- This film also makes me wonder how free our nation really is when we are so clearly kept in the dark. I feel that we have a right to know and that when events such as Judi Bari’s car being bombed, someone should be convicted of a crime.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
- I don’t know that this film actually touches on the environmental problem enough to address those who are environmentally concerned. This film, in my opinion, focuses more on the role of government in preventing sustainable change, which is still compelling and equally important. It is more likely that viewers of this film will begin to second guess the perception that government is all-telling and question how much change is actually possible without the full cooperation of government.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
- Not to sound repetitive, but the film suggests that we cannot always depend on our government to be honest, although this is usually for “our own good.” It encourages fighting injustices done against us, even if it is done by the government because even they are not above the law.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
- According to the title, I had expected this film to be more about the logging industry and not government agencies and our legal system. So perhaps to add to the environmental education, the director could have focused a little longer on the logging industry and why it is so protected by the government (in that the government does not impose regulations on this industry).
[Posted March 14, 2010]